ly also fully explains the oath which
had been imposed upon the governor and the privy counsellors. And the
believer enjoyed, not only a freedom, but also a protection. He who
"troubled, molested, or discountenanced" him was, according to the law,
fined for his offence.

5. From the language of the act, as well as the subsequent practice of
the government, it is evident that the quiet disbeliever also was
protected. A case can easily be given. But it is enough for the reader
to look at that section of the law which forbids the application, in a
reproachful sense, to "any person or persons whatsoever," of any "name
or term" "relating to matter of religion."

The act, it will be observed, covers a very broad ground. It is true, it
did not embrace every class of subsequent religionists. A Jew, without
peril to his life, could not call the Saviour of the world a "magician"
or a "necromancer." A Quaker, under the order of the government, was
required to take off his hat in court, or go immediately to the
whipping-post. The Mormon, who dignifies polygamy with the notion of a
sacrament, who disseminates the Gospel in the propagation of his
species, would not have been allowed, we may suppose, to marry more than
one woman. But as early as 1659 a well-known nonbeliever in the Trinity
lived here, transacted his business, and instituted without objection
his suits in the civil courts. Nor were the Jewish disabilities entirely
removed till a period long after the American Revolution; and this
feature of the law, all things considered, was not more of a reproach to
the legislators of 1649 than the constitution of the State to the
reformers of 1774.

We have no evidence, indeed, that any Quakers were in Maryland at the
passage of the law; and when they came, their case was misunderstood;
for the dislike toward them arose from their supposed want of respect
for the constituted authorities, and their refusal to take the oath of
submission. A constitutional difficulty might also readily occur to
anyone, as it certainly did to the Proprietary, who was bound by the
charter to maintain the fundamental principles of Anglo-Saxon law, which
had always regarded the instrumentality of the oath in the
administration of practical justice as the corner-stone of a system. But
every disposition was manifested to render them comfortable; and they
soon became a flourishing and influential denomination.

Notwithstanding the imperfection which ever